Why do Republicans seem to think they are owed support from Libertarians?

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

Yes, actually (or at least 'paleoconservative' in the sense of people like Josh Hawley or J.D. Vance who believe in large state projects for transforming popular culture, and often convert to high-church branches of Christianity; I don't think this applies to your run-of-the-mill socially conservative isolationists). I think the main divide will be between something like 'all public institutions are untrustworthy and we should reduce their influence in everyday life' and 'we should not do that', with the former comprising a clear majority of society but the latter having the advantage of most educated or cultured people on its side.

Because the swing towards what would have been called 'social liberalism' in the 2000s is so powerful I'm not sure either party will be particularly marked by social conservatism, so you'll see social conservatives who are distrustful of the government (stereotypically poorer people in low-church denominations, or 'nondenominational', but also people resisting government interference in things like religious educational institutions) supporting the former but those who believe in a socially-conservative reformation of the whole society spearheaded by the federal government (like...uh...Josh Hawley, but probably not very many non-elite people) joining the latter party.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

I sort of believe this about Hawley, whose first two campaigns were much more 'Generic R' than he ended up becoming, but I think most people do have sincere beliefs. Cruz has refused to budge from his 2012/2013-era principles even as they've become kind of unfashionable (...probably because he senses that they're a better fit for the actual voters than Hawleyism), and inasmuch as many people in the Hawley wing, or just paleoconservative commentators (J.D. Vance and Rod Dreher come to mind here, but there others) have converted to higher-church denominations, I think those conversions are probably sincere but reveal a mindset very out-of-step with ordinary conservative voters.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

Virtually has to be the first, I think, because of a mixture of where the current Republican voters are, where the current Republican politicians are, and also the sheer fact that embracing government intervention to combat these is likely to be easy to attack as corrupt and is unlikely to work, since it would be implemented by a federal government which is mostly pretty hostile to the idea. But I guess we'll see.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

I sort of believe this about Hawley, whose first two campaigns were much more 'Generic R' than he ended up becoming, but I think most people do have sincere beliefs. Cruz has refused to budge from his 2012/2013-era principles even as they've become kind of unfashionable (...probably because he senses that they're a better fit for the actual voters than Hawleyism), and inasmuch as many people in the Hawley wing, or just paleoconservative commentators (J.D. Vance and Rod Dreher come to mind here, but there others) have converted to higher-church denominations, I think those conversions are probably sincere but reveal a mindset very out-of-step with ordinary conservative voters.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

Virtually has to be the first, I think, because of a mixture of where the current Republican voters are, where the current Republican politicians are, and also the sheer fact that embracing government intervention to combat these is likely to be easy to attack as corrupt and is unlikely to work, since it would be implemented by a federal government which is mostly pretty hostile to the idea. But I guess we'll see.

Where were the Republican politicians at on trade in 1930 and how much of a bearing did this have on the future protectionism of the GOP in the coming decades?

In 20 to 30 years, most of your voters from a given election, are dead, because seniors turnout in such higher rates than young people. This is perhaps the most under discussed and unconsidered aspect of political trends in popular culture, who often tend to treat blocs of voters as these eternal beings who voted one way for 100 years, then decided to shift another. Even Kevin Phillips failed to consider generational change.

Look at the broader Millennial experience and then contemplate how that effects things. Sure they hate authority, hate war and don't trust government at all, but they also don't trust finance, large numbers of them are "open" to alternatives to capitalism and they have been hammered unlike any generation since the Depression.

Pretty much every Republican primary ever we have exit polls suggests young voters are more fiscally conservative; Cruz's support skewed very young in 2016, for instance, as did Ron Paul's in 2012. By contrast, Romney and Trump had much older electorates.

When I think of overwhelmingly-young right-wing political movements in the United States, the one that comes to mind first and foremost is cryptocurrency promotion, which is essentially an enormous grassroots effort to repeal financial regulations and replace them with absolutely nothing. (Ideological cryptocurrency promotion has been an issue in primaries in 2022 on both sides of the aisle, and I'm observing that it tends to win, though by no means all the time, and in both parties it perceives itself as opposed to enemies on the left).

By contrast, things like opposition to abortion or gay marriage seem to be withering away among my generation.

Don't underestimate the ability for massive changes in the political culture over the next ten to twenty years, and certainly don't do so because of "the current politicians" and "the current voters".

I don't think I underestimate this -- this conversation started with Goldwater quoting my thoughts about how the political culture is likely to change in the next few decades! Massively indeed. But I think the most important trend here is the decline in trust in government, and I think the events of the near future are likely to accelerate this rather than reverse it. (To be clear, because of the giant baby bust that began in 2008, there is going to be a peak in US college enrollment circa 2026 that is unfixable. Maybe it can be fixed with absolutely massive immigration of very skilled individuals, but that seems very unlikely under our current political alignment. Given that, we're going to see a cascading wave of college bankruptcies and layoffs from the higher-education sector, which employs an enormous number of white-collar people. Under those circumstances, you're going to see a decline of trust in institutions also strike white-collar people who have been insulated from it so far).

What kind of politics are people without a trust in government going to adopt? It's going to be one of gradually stripping away all restrictions. Sure, "faith in capitalism" might be low, but if you don't trust the whole concept of government you're never going to be able to build any kind of replacement, particularly in a culture where there is no single unified source of news, and a thousand tiny sources bloom and feud with each other instead. The idea of building new social programs, or creating new goals for the government in such an environment, is absurd.

...with one exception, which is that trust in the military has so far substantially escaped the decline in 'trust in institutions', and in general trust in the military in many societies has followed a pattern very different from trust in other institutions. Under conditions like these, anyone who actually wants the government to accomplish anything other than ripping up zoning laws and financial regulations and (eventually) laws regarding abortion/marriage/drug-use is going to join the Military Party, which includes the socialists (who have a positive agenda) and the paleoconservatives (who have a positive agenda, too). I think it's legitimately unlikely that we have room for either kind of thought unless they band together.